[Idr] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 24 March 2021 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9003A1044; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 12:09:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, Jie Dong <jie.dong@huawei.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, jie.dong@huawei.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.27.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-ID: <161661295805.2977.9359905854244102147@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 12:09:18 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KzHO66JCKUyRZaquviXbWFnQYs0>
Subject: [Idr] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 19:09:19 -0000

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm putting in a "discuss" DISCUSS that I expect to clear during the
call. Several other ADs raised issues that deserve discussion. While they may
not fall under the "discuss criteria", they also don't fall under the "discuss
non-criteria" and I want to make sure we spent some time on discussing them.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2.1, paragraph 4, comment:
>    In all cases of review by the Designated Expert (DE) described here,
>    the DE is expected to check the clarity of purpose and use of the
>    requested code points.  The following points apply to the registries
>    discussed in this document:
>

The process outlined in the rest of this section seems to define rules that are
basically equivalent to doing an RFC7120 "early allocation" for these
registries. Why is that existing process not sufficient?